State of New Hampshire v. State of Louisiana State of New York v. Same
| Citation | 27 L.Ed. 656,108 U.S. 76,2 S.Ct. 176 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. STATE OF LOUISIANA and others. STATE OF NEW YORK v. SAME |
| Decision Date | 05 March 1883 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
On the eighteenth of July, 1879, the general court of New Hampshire passed an act, of which the following is a copy:
'An act to protect the rights of citizens of this state, holding claims against other states.
'Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives in general court convened:
Under this act six of the consolidated bonds of the state of Louisiana, particularly described in the cases of State v. Jumel and Elliott v. Wiltz, just decided, [ante, 128,] were assigned to the state of New Hampshire by one of its citizens. This assignment was made for the purposes contemplated in the act, and passed to the state no other or different title than it would acquire in that way. After the assignment was perfected, a bill in equity was filed in this court in the name of the state of New Hampshire, as complainant, against the state of Louisiana and the several officers of that state who compose the board of liquidation provided for in the act authorizing the issue of the bonds. The averments in the bill are substantially the same as those in Elliott v. Jumel, supra, save only that in this case the ownership of the bonds specially involved is stated to be in New Hampshire, while in that it was in Elliott and his associates. The prayer is, in substance, for a decree that the bonds and the act and constitutional amendment of 1874 constitute a valid contract between Louisiana and the holders of its bonds; that the defendants and each of them may be prohibited from diverting the proceeds of the taxes levied under the act from the payment of the interest; and that the provisions of the debt ordinance of 1879 may be adjudged void and of no effect, because they impair the obligation of the contract. The bill was signed in the name of New Hampshire by the attorney general of that state, and also by the same counsel who appeared for Elliott, Gwynn & Walker in their suit in equity just decided.
On the fifteenth of May, 1880, the legislature of New York passed the following act:
'An act to protect the rights of citizens of this state owning and holding claims against other states.
'The people of the state of New York, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
On the twentieth of April, 1881, E. K. Goodnow and Benjamin Graham, being the holders and owners of 30 coupons cut from 10 of the consolidated bonds of Louisiana falling due January 1, 1880, July 1, 1880, and January 1, 1881, assigned them to the state of New York by an instrument in writing, of which the following is a copy:
'Know all men by these presents, that we, the undersigned, citizens of the state of New York, being the owners and holders of valid claims against the state of Louisiana, arising upon written obligations to pay money, made, executed, and delivered by the state of Louisiana, and now past due and unpaid, being the coupons hereto annexed, in consideration of one dollar to each of us paid by the state of New York, and for other good and valuable considerations, hereby assign and transfer the said claims and coupons to the state of New York.
'And we do hereby covenant with the said state that if an attempt is made by it to collect the said claim from the state of Louisiana we will pay all the expenses of the collection of the same.
'In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and affixed our seals this twentieth day of April, in the year of our Lord 1881.
'Sealed and delivered in presence of
'FRANK M. CARSON.'
W. H. Peckham, for New Hampshire.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 80-81 intentionally omitted] W. A. Duer, L. W. Russell, and David Dudley Field, for New York.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 81-83 intentionally omitted] John A. Campbell, for Louisiana.
[Argument of Counsel from Pages 84-85 intentionally omitted]
Thereupon the state of New York, on the twenty-fifth of April, filed in this court a bill in equity against the state of Louisiana and the officers of the state composing the board of liquidation, with substantially the same averments and the same prayer as in that of the state of New Hampshire. There was, however, a statement in this bill, not in the other, to the effect that many of the consolidated bonds were issued to citizens of the state of New York in exchange for old bonds of Louisiana which they held, and that citizens of New York now hold and own bonds of the same class to a large amount. Testimony has been taken in support of this averment.
The first question we have to settle is whether, upon the facts shown, these suits can be maintained in this court.
Article 3, § 2, of the constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to 'controversies between two or more states,' and 'between a state and citizens of another state.' By the same article and section it is also provided that in cases 'in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McElroy v. Swart
... ... belonging to the state. During the winter the complainant cut ... and ... a settlement might lawfully be made for the same with ... [57 Mich. 503] the state; neither is ... 128; Hans v. State of ... Louisiana, 24 F. 55; Harvey v. Com. Virginia, 20 F. 411; Ex ... ...
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Bosworth
... ... the state of Kentucky. The injunction sought is to restrain ... cases in that court which decide exactly the same ... thing, and there is a radical difference of ... Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U.S. 711, 2 Sup.Ct. 128, 27 ... Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76, 2 Sup.Ct. 176, 27 ... state, to wit, stocks and bonds in New York, which were not ... used in the business, and ... ...
-
Welch v. Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation
.... . Justice Bradley rewrote the history of the Eleventh Amendment. . . . Only half a dozen years before, in [New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76, 2 S.Ct. 176, 27 L.Ed. 656 (1883),] written by Chief Justice Waite and joined by Justice Bradley, the Court had accepted Chisholm as a correct......
-
State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania Co
...suit for injuries sustained by its citizens and inhabitants for which they may sue in their own behalf. State of New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76, 2 S.Ct. 176, 27 L.Ed. 656; State of Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 20 S.Ct. 251, 44 L.Ed. 347; State of Oklahoma v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R......
-
Sovereign Immunity and the Uses of History
...prohibition on such suits by a citizen against a state. See id. at 328 (White, J., dissenting); see also New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76 (1883) (holding that one state could not create a controversy with another state by assuming the prosecution of debts owed by the other state to i......
-
Table of Cases
...878, 884 New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331, 102 S.Ct. 1096, 71 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982), 872, 887 New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76, 2 S.Ct. 176, 27 L.Ed. 656 (1883), New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767, 118 S.Ct. 1726, 140 L.Ed.2d 993 (1998), 667, 900 New Jersey v. Wils......
-
Overcoming immunity: the case of federal regulation of intellectual property.
...recognized when the plaintiff state is merely asserting private claims on behalf of private parties. Compare New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76 (1883) (upholding immunity when the plaintiff state was suing on bonds assigned to it by private parties for purposes of litigation that was f......
-
THE MISUNDERSTOOD ELEVENTH AMENDMENT.
...corporation," and that "[t]he Planters' Bank of Georgia is not the State of Georgia" for purposes of subject-matter jurisdiction). (111) 108 U.S. 76, 91 (1883) (emphasis (112) U.S. CONST. amend. XI (emphasis added). (113) Clark, 108 U.S. at 448; accord Paul Horton, Lapides v. Board of Regen......